UPDATED: Why Won't Warner Embrace 'The Women'? Or Will It? And What Other Female Film Isn't Getting Love There?

I am both amused and appalled to watch from the sidelines this spectacle of Hollywood movie execs trying to figure out how to cash in on the Sex And The City female frenzy. (Well, at least until the chick flick dropped 34% from Friday to Saturday, thus easing their initial panic. But the pic did a better than expected Sunday to end up with a final $56.8 million for the weekend.) At least Warner Bros quickly decided to embrace a Sex sequel. But that same studio is sitting on a potential successor, maybe even a reproducible event, about to come out September 12th. Yet WB is giving The Women the cold shoulder. Especially after this weekend, you’d think that Warner Bros would be jumping all over Picturehouse’s long awaited Diane English low-budgeted $16.5 million remake of the famed Clare Booth Luce play and 1939 George Cukor film. Forget about the merits of the movie: I’m talking about the potential for box office moolah stirred up by some savvy Sex-exploiting. Instead, I’ve just been told that Warner Bros is still going to let Picturehouse market and distribute the movie in very limited release even though Picturehouse is in the process of shutting down. Here is Warner Bros able to control the PG-13 comedy — just like it did Sex And The City from HBO Films and New Line, the studios that created Picturehouse — but isn’t interested.

I’m told Warner Bros execs including movie boss and charter member of the he-man women-haters clubJeff Robinov (who keeps maintaining he was just joking when he said he didn’t want to make any more motion pictures with women as the leads) recently screened The Women and didn’t like it. “It’s not Sex In The City. It’s just not that kind of movie,” a studio insider insisted to me. Puh-leeze, who indeed wants a low-budget $16.5 million chick flick written, directed and produced by one of the biz’s greatest women’s comedy writers of seminal Murphy Brown fame… That stars quality “name” actress like Meg Ryan, Annette Bening, Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Bette Midler, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Debi Mazur, Joanna Gleason, Carrie Fisher, Lynn Whitfield and Cloris Leachman… That reworks the original so it takes place in the broadcasting world and an ashram-like retreat where Meg plays a fashion designer and wife and mother, Eva the skanky mistress, and Annette the deliciously two-faced BFF and so on…

English has told the media that the most brutal part of her 15-year battle to make The Women “was getting financing. Studios still think it’s a fluke when a women’s picture succeeds. I’m going to prove them wrong — again.” I say Diane should be kicking up a big fat fuss right now for a major and wide release. After all, even if the movie is no good, its marketing campaign could be fabulous not to mention obvious: “If you loved Sex In The City, then you need to see The Women who started it all.”

Recent Comments

Let's face it. If women enjoyed the power and the closed-club men enjoy today, women would also...

Lisa Lee

7 years

To TM: What do you mean?? The film ("Women") will tank because they're not all young and...

Warner Bros

7 years

The trend is towards concept/franchise films and not a singular star. And talking about The Women: Ryan,...

Here’s the trailer. Two updates below…

UPDATE: Well, this is an interesting development for The Women. A top Warner Bros exec just phoned me and said, “We should give it another look.” I hope the studio does. With just an $16.5 million negative cost, and Sex And The City fresh in female minds, I see no reason to platform this pic to “find” an audience. It’s never made sense to me for any studio to spend $30+M to market a limited release film that isn’t intended for serious awards consideration, only to open the wallet still wider if and when the pic opens in more theaters in order to combat all the cineplex clutter. My feeling is that, these days, studios need to do everything possible to make their money the first and second weekends for low-budget films — and then the rest is gravy. Besides, those quality actresses in a “frenemy” comedy is a draw, so I bet women will line up for at least a $20M opening weekend in wide release even if it’s only so-so — as long as Warner Bros draws heavily on SATC and markets it as another pic about female friendships and upscale lifestyles and urban sex.

2nd UPDATE: One of the Warner Bros films which Jeff Robinov cited to the Hollywood community while defending himself against my he-man women-haters club story was the comedy Spring Breakdown, starring a top-notch cast of great female comediennes including Parker Posey, Amy Poehler and fellow SNL alumna Rachel Dratch who also stars in and co-wrote it. “The studio has decided, despite excellent test scores with women of all ages, and Amy Poehler’s rising stardom (Baby Mama), that it should go straight to DVD,” a source tells me. “This is pure and unadulterated hatred of female driven projects, especially comedies, at that studio. It’s a real shame about this film, because women love it.” Personally, I’m not at all sure the more sophisticated female audience for Sex And The City and The Women is clamoring for a dumbed-down women’s comedy. But could it be worse content-wise than the Harold & Kumar franchise?

75 Comments

It is really unfortunate that the moviebusiness is stil in the hands of old sexist males who think the moviegoing audience consists only of boys between the ages of 12 and 25 :( :(

If this movie fails, it will be because of them, not the cast or director.

ckn8 • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

Hmmm…

I’d wait til you see The Women to really argue its merits. Comedy is fleeting, and creating something that worked in the 90’s means nothing today. Nothing from then is funny anymore. Besides, if I had any interest in hack television creators/writers making films one imagines I would have enjoyed Pushing Tin from the Cheers gang. Or that awful movie Larry David made with Grapes in the title.

Although Meg Ryan’s been box-office poison as of late, the fact that The Women only cost $18 million (which is normally 1 actor’s salary) means that a carefully planned (& shrewdly budgeted) marketing campaign, much on the lines of SATC’s marketing could have the film in profit after 1 weekend at best, a week at worst.

Hell, I’d have had a trailer for it at the beginning of SATC, just in case.

As a studio boss I’d never let personal tastes get in the way of a quick buck, because without it, you have $18 million spent, and nothing coming in from it.

But I’m not a studio boss. Yet.

JCROW • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

Nikki Finke is most correct in this instance.

September is historically a very strong month with women-targeted blockbusters – Fatal Attraction and The First Wives Club.

Sex and the City has been wildly successful, showing there is an audience out there besides Geeks and the humanoids who paid to see Alvin and the Chipmunks.

Actresses get more interesting when they age. Hollywood needs to put the botox down and let weathered women act in movies. There are 3 good actresses in The Women(Eva Mendes isn’t one of them. And Meg Ryan has lost her confidence.)

I’d like to see a Women’s movie that also isn’t really a Gay male or Lesbian fantasy story. Women over 40 aren’t necessarily tied to the hip with the Gay community.

Chris • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

Yeah, umm…what if The Women just sucks?

Ever consider that?

BS • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

i’m sure it’s not nearly as good as SPEED RACER

anotherWGAmember • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

ckn8, what an asshole remark. Diane English is only one of the funniest, most biting and insightful comedy writers of the last few decades. Her “hack” work created a series that ran 222 episodes and garnered 64 Emmy Nominations. What have you EVER done in your life (except, I assume, make snide comments from your parents’ basement) that gives you the footing to comment on her work?

The big problem here is “The Women” is being brought to the screen by the same studio that abandoned “The Iron Giant” the great first work of Brad Bird, in order to put all their resources into marketing “Eyes Wide Shut” which turned out to be pure turd-on-a-stick.

Znachki • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

As long as English’s adaptation doesn’t screw up the play too much (and Cuckor’s movie was not as forthright as the paly), this movie could make some decent money.

It may have been written in the 1930’s, but it still sings.

Ladies – get out your “Jungle Red”

BS • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

i’m sure SPEED RACER is much better

AB • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

I saw a trailer for The Women at my Friday screening of SATC.

Original Joe • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

This movie succeeding is good for everyone. It’s good for writers, showing that we can all be flexible and diversified in our employmet potential and it’s good for women, showing we can draw at the box office.

Perhaps a grassroots movement? Everyone using their email address books, blogs and message boards to good use….? Non?

Wendy • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

In response to Nikki’s (always astute) comments, and those of the other readers- I’d like to say that I HAVE seen THE WOMEN at a preview screening….it’s adult,smart, funny and perfect for the SATC audience (and trailers are attached to SATC in selected theatre chains)…Meg is marvelous in the movie and reminds you of why you first fell in love with her….All the actresses have great moments in the movie.

Again, this movie didn’t cost much(though it looks expensive!) and WB should be supporting it wholeheartedly -not only, as Furious D said (above), to make their money back – but also to support a terrifically entertaining movie for a poorly served segment of the audience (If the SATC numbers don’t make studios realize that grown women will go out to theatres if you give them a reason to, I don’t know what will!)

Francine Fishpaw • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

I’m very disappointed about this as I had high hopes for the movie. Not just because of Diane English (never really a fan of Murphy Brown) but it has an amazing cast which, like Bette Midler’s other movie The First Wives Club which also grouped together some good actresses, should spell “hit” at the box office. No surprise though that that chauvinist piece of shit Robinov would try to bury the film. Maybe if Diane added some explosions and got his cast to show their tits he might give it a wide release? Unbelievable.

Why won’t they embrace it? It’s a film with no pre-marketing that would appear to only appeal to women, starring a bunch of actresses with little box office clout, and directed by someone who hasn’t had a credit in a decade.

My guess is that it’s also probably a film that will benefit more from word of mouth than a huge ad campaign so the smaller release makes sense. My guess is that it is closer to Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, or Juno than Sex & The City which had a pre-sold audience.

Granted, the studio will probably just dump it and not really help nurture it the way they should but to think that The Women somehow deserves a huge release because of Sex and the City just seems like an overreaction.

calamaty jane • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

My husband and I saw SATC last night. There was a trailer for “The Women”.

Rae • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

There was a preview for The Women at the theater I was at for SATC this past weekend and the crowd was eating it up. Maybe the movie won’t hold up to the preview but I think women would go to see it if they pushed it. Especially since the fun they had at SATC will be fresh in the minds of the women who made an outing of it.

actingup • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

Women are 51% of the population – yet the men who run the studios seem to think we do not exist – except as the bimbos on the arm of Adam Sandler or Owen Wilson in a stupid frat movie. It is such a shame – when “The Devil Wears Prada” was such a huge smash there was all thie speculation that FINALLY the studios would realize that women of all ages appreciate good entertaining films with strong, smart female characters – and make more films starring women.

The ONLY way this will ever change is for 50 percent of the studios to be run by women – and half of all films to be written and directed by women. I know a ton of brilliant women in this town trying to get their break in directing and writing….but is is almost impossible. You would think in Hollywood it is really 1950. It is shameful.

Reader • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

Long awaited? Who’s been awaiting it? I don’t know one person who thinks it’s a good idea to try to remake this classic with Meg Ryan & co. in the roles made famous by Norma Shearer, Rosalind Russell, Joan Crawford, Joan Fontaine, Paulette Goddard, et al. It’s not misogynistic to expect — even to hope — that this terrible idea will flop.

This is absolutely crazy, and a huge disappointment (regarding “Spring Breakdown”). :( How reliable is your source? I went to a test screening not even a week ago and everyone was raving about it and even saying they like it as well or better than “Baby Mama”! How recent is this development? Is it possible the studio has since decided to work with it more? Like I said, I went to the test screening not even a week ago yet, and one of the people running it were saying it should be out in a few months. (??)

Jeff’s female bashing is sad. The Women at $18M with that cast can certainly re-coup in a weekend with some support and smarts from WB……if it is good or even just OK.

his attitude stinks and is soooooooooooo 1920 !

we are 51% of the population and if we women are smart we will make Hillary our next president. perhaps her position will help some MEN change their stupid, dated and disrespectful attitude against strong WOMEN.

Women ARE funny! • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

“Spring Breakdown” should have been given a chance on the big screen!

BS • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

Just let them make another SPEED RACER.

Lutz • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

Probably not possible that the movie just isn’t good, right?

FairyTaleListener • on Jun 2, 2008 2:02 pm

Ummm
Meg Ryan had the joker surgery done and that was the end of her career. Why this film even exists is beyond me.